Jones v. McElroy

Full title: RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. C. W. McELROY, et al., Defendants.

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Sep 15, 2015

2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P (E.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2015)

Opinion

RODNEY WAYNE JONES, Plaintiff, v. C. W. McELROY, et al., Defendants. No. 2:13-cv-1375 GEB CKD P United States District Court, E.D. California. September 15, 2015

          ORDER

          GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.

         On September 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's order filed August 31, 2015, granting and denying in part defendants' motion to compel and denying plaintiff's motion for protective order. (ECF No. 77.)

         Plaintiff asks the Court to consider his opposition to defendants' motion to compel (ECF No. 75), constructively filed and docketed after the deadline for responding to defendants' motion. See L.R. 230(l). He similarly asks the court to consider his reply in support of a protective order (ECF No. 76), which was constructively filed and docketed after the deadline to reply. See id. Plaintiff states that, through no fault of his own, his receipt of defendants' filings on paper has been delayed, causing delays in his responses. (ECF No. 77.)

         The Court has reviewed plaintiff's recent filings, in which he continues to object to defendants' presence at his deposition. Pursuant to E.D. Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge's orders shall be upheld unless "clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Upon review of the entire file, the court finds that it does not appear that the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

         Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, upon reconsideration, the order of the magistrate judge filed August 31, 2015 is affirmed.